Question accordingly negatived.
	 It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than forty Members had taken part in the Division, Madam Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided.

Annette Brooke: In Committee, I indicated that I wanted to return to the issue of information provided to parents by local authorities. In Committee, the Minister pointed to an existing duty on local authorities to provide information on their arrangements for special educational needs, including information on planning and reviewing special needs provision in their areas. He noted in relation to parent partnership services that the Department had issued exemplary guidance setting out minimum good practice and best practice for the provision of information, and he referred to the new duties under the Childcare Act 2006.
	I remain greatly concerned that although parents can access impartial information in theory, that is not necessarily the case across the whole country. Some research has come my way since the Bill was in Committee that underlines my feelings and the experience of my constituents. A survey by CentreForum of one third of all local authorities in England and Wales found that only 5 per cent. of them are meeting their legal duty to provide information about special educational needs provision.
	In 2001, the Government introduced a legal requirement for councils to publish information on their websites describing local special educational needs policies—obviously, the provision of information is vital for helping parents to negotiate a complex system. It has been suggested that local authorities are manifestly failing to provide the information required by law. Overall, just 5 per cent. of local authorities provided all the information that they are supposed to publish, while only 27 per cent. gave information about the funding available to support children in the school action and school action plus categories.
	The finding in the report that only 39 per cent. of authorities explain how they monitor the allocation and effectiveness of special educational needs spending and resource deployment is especially concerning. Lucy Wilkins, the report's author, has said that the last time that local authorities were surveyed in 2003, only 5 per cent. of them were publishing all the information that they are required to publish. Five years later, still only 5 per cent. are in full compliance with the law.
	That underlines the difficulties faced by parents in trying to access support for children with learning difficulties. From our constituency experience, we know how parents feel when they are not confident that they have information on all the options available to their children, and they have great difficulty in making and accessing the best choice. The report highlights the concerns that, while we are very happy with the general principles of the Bill, previous legislation required information to be published, but, according to that recent study, that information is not being provided. After all, parents, not politicians, are best placed to decide where and how their child should be educated, but how can parents access choice if they are not given the information that they need? I feel that it is important to introduce tough regulations, possibly in the Bill, to make it clear that information must be provided to parents.
	Personally, I am strongly in favour of the recommendation made by the Children, Schools and Families Committee in its first report in 2006 on special educational needs. It recommended local maps of provision. I understand that local authorities that already adopt a mapping approach report a marked improvement in practice and in parental confidence levels. For example, a senior officer at Wiltshire county council said that the detailing of the precise provision that parents can expect, depending on their child's needs, has helped make the system fairer and improved the quality of provision. Other local authorities report that the particular practice of mapping not only where the provision is but its exact details is very helpful and builds on the work of the pupil-parent partnerships.
	Following our Committee report, I should make it clear that when I pointed out that there were issues with pupil-parent partnerships, I was not criticising a particular one. However, there is a perception among the parents whom I meet here in the House of Commons and in my constituency, which has two children's services authorities, that pupil-parent partnerships are not independent. That is another issue that the Government need to consider.
	Overall, despite past legislation, there is a real information gap. One of the most important points is that parents of children with special educational needs should be empowered. However, they cannot be unless they have the necessary information in front of them. I would like there to be reconsideration of the new clause, which we tabled in Committee because I feel that there should be a lot more discussion and response and that the Department should be working to ensure that local authorities are meeting their existing commitments before we move towards more vague promises about more information.
	I should like to refer next to amendment No. 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams) and I tabled after listening carefully to the discussion in Committee. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) had tabled an amendment requiring an annual report, and I felt that there was a lot of merit in that proposal, although perhaps it was too precise in requiring an annual debate. I thought about the issue and have suggested that subsection (1) of new section 332D, which is entitled "Publication of information", should read, "The Secretary of State must in each calendar year publish, or arrange to be published, special needs information which has been obtained under this Act and a report on how this may assist the Secretary of State or other persons in improving the well-being of children in England with special educational needs."
	In other words, the report should be widely available and should not contain only select information, which would mean that we did not know why the Secretary of State had decided that children's well-being would be improved. The amendment would provide some back-up for what is published. A debate following such a move would give clear indications for future policy and the improvement of future provision. If the amendment is not agreed to, I fear that we will just have a mass of information without an underlying set of purposes and without more detail than just "improving the well-being" of the child. It is easy to justify any amount of information in general terms, as important as that is. My amendment would give something much more specific and make sure that the focus was continually on improving the outcomes for children with special educational needs.

Kevin Brennan: I should like to return to some of the hon. Lady's earlier remarks. She mentioned that she was not making any particular criticisms, but I remind her that in Committee she said:
	"I was chairman of education at Poole borough council when the parent support partnership was introduced, and I was excited that we had the money and authority to employ such a person...Eleven years on, I am very sad that constituent after constituent tells me that they have no confidence that the advice is independent. I am aware that the system is not working." ——[Official Report, Special Educational Needs (Information) Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2008; c. 32.]
	Was she referring specifically to Poole at that point?

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his intervention. He may be aware that my constituency has a number of councils—every type of council—within it. As I said earlier, it has two children's services authorities so I could not put my hand on my heart and say from which authority I have had the most such representations. However, I should like to confirm that I am saying that there is a perception that the partnerships are not independent. As long as parents do not have confidence, there will be the issue of their seeking advice.
	I also tell the Minister, and my local authorities, that when the parent of a child with special educational needs comes to my surgery, the first thing that I say to them is, "Have you been to the pupil-parent partnership?" As I said, I was so excited when they were set up, and that was always my first question. Perhaps that is why I have had the responses. However, I ask the question not to elicit a response of no confidence but to make sure that the parents are accessing every piece of information available locally.
	I take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that I am not undermining the specific work of pupil-parent partnerships, which are incredibly important. However, there is an issue about parents not having confidence. A lot of what we are talking about today, and have talked about in previous debates on the Bill, it to do with building up parents' confidence.
	I understand that the Government themselves have commissioned Brian Lamb to consider ways of building up parental confidence. I feel that we are all like-minded on the issue, and I am happy to point out that what I hear from constituents and others is that they are not convinced that the partnerships are independent. One therefore needs to consider how to improve the situation. To backtrack on to my new clause, I should say that I want to enforce the motivation behind new clause 1—that is, genuinely to make available as much objective information as possible, to say what is there and to provide a full audit of what is available in a particular area.
	I return to amendment No. 1, which is about the need for a report. I end my comments on it by saying that I had a great deal of sympathy with the idea of having an annual report that drew things together. I recall suggesting that if we had such a report, the Children, Schools and Families Committee could consider it as part of its remit, for example. The Minister was most encouraging and said that he would consider that idea. In due course, I hope to hear what consideration he has given to that point.
	Finally, I turn to amendment No. 2, which requires information on teacher training to be supplied. I want to emphasise how much I support the principle of checking exactly what progress we are making on teacher training for special educational needs.
	That, of course, means a whole school approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and I tabled an amendment in Committee and felt that we had had a good discussion of the issue, so I thought that on Report we would probably just go through the details. This is a core issue—it is all about the quality of the teaching in the school setting.
	We are aware that, very belatedly, action is being taken to put more special educational needs content into the four-year undergraduate courses for teacher training, but 80 per cent. of teachers still come through on a post-graduate certificate course. I am not sure whether that involves special educational needs training. There is also a course with training that takes place within schools—school-centred initial teacher training, or SCIIT—as well as Teach First. Teachers come through via many different routes. Although it is welcome that at long last there are movements to work with the Training and Development Agency for Schools, it is a question of timing. The Government have moved to a policy of inclusion, rapidly at times, from 1997 onwards, but here we are in 2008 talking about the deficiency in teacher training. That must be tackled as soon as possible.
	The NUT study, "Costs of Inclusion", suggests that fewer than 14 per cent. of teachers are confident that they can recognise dyslexia and shows that teachers lack confidence across the board. It found that only 18 per cent. of teachers were confident in teaching children with severe learning difficulties, and the vast majority—86 per cent.—had not received specific professional development in that respect. A majority— 55 per cent.—felt confident in teaching children with moderate learning difficulties, but 76 per cent. had not received special professional development in the past 12 months. So it goes on. Much remains to be done on teacher training, as well as on postgraduate qualifications and on continuous professional development.
	A few weeks ago, a written statement on dyslexia announced the set up of some pilot schemes. That is welcome, but I agree with Xtraordinary People—we need action now. While it sounds like a good idea to have pilots, are we not just pushing the solutions into the future? There is a lot of evidence to show that when there is a specialist dyslexia teacher in a school, the outcomes are very good. Xtraordinary People tells me that the vast majority of independent schools have that provision. The Government aspire to equality across the spectrum of education provision, so, given the importance of such specialist teaching, should we not be moving faster than piloting?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Lady—she is right. When I say that parents and others are impatient, I am suggesting that they have every reason to be so, and that the feeling is that we should surely just get on and invest the money.
	There are many special educational needs. Much attention is focused on dyslexia, which is important because it has been identified that perhaps one in five pupils are potentially dyslexic. Children with dyslexia are underperforming greatly in all the key stage tests, which has wider implications for their potential and what might happen to them in wider society.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The report by Xtraordinary People points out that there are hard costs to society from this underperformance. Many young people in prison have dyslexia. That does not mean that all dyslexic children go on to offend, but there is clearly some connection. In all sorts of social ways, children, and then young people, are missing out and causing, in one way or another, extra burdens on society. When we see the costs imposed on society by failing to address the issue early enough, the amount of money that needs to be spent on teacher training and employing specialist teachers is very small in relation to those wider costs.

Annette Brooke: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Interventions are important at all levels, but the purpose of the Bill is to intervene at a very early stage so as to prevent the subsequent costs at a later stage. I have mentioned the impact on society, but most important is the impact on the individual who is, in one way and another, unable to fulfil their potential. Training is of vital importance.
	We have received a great deal of information about deaf children and their sad underperformance, which was quite an eye-opener and something that all MPs have become aware of thanks to the National Deaf Children's Society. The 25 per cent. gap in performance as regards children gaining five A to C-grade GCSEs is alarming and again highlights the need for specialist teaching. When I recently spoke about sign language and interpreting, it was drawn to my attention that sometimes the assistants who are with deaf pupils only have NVQ level 2 in sign language, whereas the interpreting side of signing is particularly important in the classroom. We need to look at training needs right across the spectrum of special educational needs and of all those who contribute to those pupils in the school setting. We know that we are letting down a lot of children and young people, and training is a key means of addressing that failing.
	I have been speaking to new clause 1, but I have taken the opportunity to comment on a number of important matters, and if some of my points were accepted, I feel that the Bill would be the stronger and better for it.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly. I listened with interest to the intelligent remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). Like her, I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia and heard the Secretary of State's address at the meeting.
	The hon. Lady made the point that the notion of special needs goes far wider than dyslexia, and there are a variety of other special needs that many of us would accept are not being properly addressed in our school and educational systems. Dyslexia is more typical, however, and I am afraid to say that there are a number of people, including teachers, who still do not accept that dyslexia exists. I am absolutely convinced that there is a strong genetic component involved, and we heard that on Second Reading from hon. Members who are dyslexic themselves and have dyslexic children. We have some way to go to convince some teachers that dyslexia really exists. There may even be something of a genetic pool in Britain because it seems that we suffer more from dyslexia than other countries. It might be a factor that affects Britain in particular.
	The hon. Lady talked about parents and I am one of those Members—I am sure that there are others—who have had struggles with their local authority over provision for children with special needs. Parents are sometimes at their wits' end trying to get such special needs provision. Knowing what is available, as the hon. Lady said, is at least a start, but many parents do not know about it. They may be unaware of what their child's problem is; they may know that they have a problem, but are not sure what it is.
	Another issue to consider is the range of special needs and their severity. Some conditions are mild and some are more extreme, and that is particularly so in respect of behavioural and learning difficulties. Physical disabilities are more obvious, and there is often reasonable provision for physical disabilities of one sort or another. Some behavioural problems may be genetic, and some may be environmental. We hear almost by the week of chemical factors in food that affect children, for example, so other factors are involved.
	Ensuring that parents are aware of what is available is important, and in my constituency, the local authority have made provision available in schools. Some have special units for behavioural problems, and there are some remaining special schools, although there was a fashion, which I hope is coming to an end, for closing special schools and forcing children into mainstream schools, which, in my view, were not necessarily appropriate for those children. The teachers and parents certainly think that, but the local authority sometimes has a view—a dogma, almost—that inclusion at all costs is the best approach.
	There are local special schools, and there are also, for smaller numbers of young people and children with more rare difficulties, residential schools, which may serve a much wider area. I have suggested, among other things, that public provision made by a group of local authorities in a region might be the way forward. Making information available is absolutely crucial to take pressure off parents, so that they do not get to the point where they are so desperate that they go to see their Member of Parliament. A battle may then ensue, which sometimes becomes public, to get the provision that they need. Providing information is crucial so that parents at least know what they can ask for from the local authority, and so that the authority cannot sidle away from its responsibilities.
	My wife was a infants school teacher—she is now retired—and was the special needs co-ordinator in that school, and other relatives of mine and many of my friends have been teachers. Their minds are focused on the problems of children with special needs in their classes, not just because they are concerned about the children, but because they are concerned about the other children in the class and about the difficulties of teaching children with behavioural problems. We are moving in the right direction now, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us more, but we recognise that we need to make better and more specialist provision available for children with special educational needs.
	I very much welcome the Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) on introducing it. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of her in that process because I have seen so much of the difficulties in question at first hand and the sort of unhappiness they can cause to children, parents and the communities in which they live. It is also economically sensible to address such matters because behavioural difficulties can lead to all sorts of social behaviour that is costly to society.

Kelvin Hopkins: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. In the past, getting any information out of my local authority was difficult because senior officers were not sympathetic to the idea of this sort of provision for those with special educational needs. There was a difference of view that caused tension between myself and a senior officer, who has now retired, but that is another story and we have moved on.
	I wanted to support what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, and be sympathetic, but I will listen to the responses of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and the Minister with interest. We are all essentially on the same side and moving in the right direction, but I want to ensure that we keep up the momentum. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the new clause and amendments, but I await the advice from my hon. Friend the Minister.

Kevin Brennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that someone like Scott Quinnell has been able to come out in public, very bravely, and talk about his problems with dyslexia shows that at least we have moved on from the bad old days when there was almost complete denial that it was a real condition and a real problem?

Nigel Evans: Is it possible that one reason for the lack of publicity about the programme—of which I was completely ignorant until my hon. Friend showed me a piece of paper explaining what it was—is that the Government know that it is costly, and that they can save money if people do not know about it? The sad thing is that many people who could benefit from such programmes cannot gain access to them.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remark about the particular programme that he is discussing; he has certainly spoken about it at some length. New clause 1 and the amendments do not just relate to one particular programme. Perhaps he would like to continue in that vein.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have already made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have heard a considerable amount about the merits of this particular programme. New clause 1 talks about information in general, and the other amendments refer to the training of specialist teachers. Perhaps he could now widen his remarks.

Christopher Chope: I am not saying that there is no training, but there is insufficient training. If there was more training, and it was more effective, the conditions would be discovered much earlier in children's education, but they are often not picked up until much later. One of the reasons for that is that LEAs think that every child with SEN costs money, so they delay applying that label to individual children for as long as possible.
	Why do not all teachers have access to the checklists that I have mentioned so that children can be identified when they first start primary school? If they were evaluated against a checklist covering speech, learning, reading, writing, attention, co-ordination, organisational abilities and ability to follow a daily routine, any issues could be identified earlier. I suspect that that is what the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West has in mind. We need much more openness about this issue, so that we can make the necessary investment so that we do not have 18 and 19-year-olds going to university undiagnosed. I read in the report that at Bangor university, some 400 to 500 students have been identified as suffering from dyslexia, and the professor who drew that fact to the attention of the Welsh Assembly said that many of those cases should have been identified long before that stage.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I caution him to ensure that he has spoken to all the relevant outside organisations about their feelings on the inclusion development programme. Although we would all agree that any movement in this area is welcome, there is some concern that although the inclusion development programme offers a great set of materials, we need to ensure that it permeates down to the classroom. That is why I have tabled my amendment on monitoring and providing information on the level of training for teachers. Although the Government are introducing a huge number of initiatives, it is difficult to see where they are making a difference at the moment. When I speak to the NUT, I find that its concerns lie in that area, too.
	Perhaps I could turn my closing remarks to new clause 1, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole after much discussion of the subject in Committee. It spells out another specific need for information to ensure that parents can make informed choices for their children at a local authority level. In his response in Committee, the Minister highlighted the duty on local authorities to provide information on their special educational needs arrangements. He also highlighted the fact that he had issued guidance from his Department to ensure good practice on the ground. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has pointed out, research was issued earlier this month that will cast some doubt on whether local authority practices are moving forward in the way that the Minister might have hoped. I am sure that it would dismay him as much as it dismays me to see that not all the information that should be available is available.
	Perhaps it would be interesting to hear what action the Minister plans to take as a result of the research report issued by Policy Exchange and CentreForum, which clearly showed that only 39 per cent. of local authorities explained how they monitor the allocation and effectiveness of SEN spending. Indeed, an interesting commentary in the report showed that potentially a great deal of SEN spending was wasted locally. Xtraordinary People, which does so much work in the area, has also commented on that fact. The report went on to show that only 18 per cent. of local authorities show how they secure training and support for SEN staff, which supports my earlier amendment and shows that local authorities are not making that information available. That would bring into question how many teachers have been given the opportunity to take up SEN training.
	My local authority in Hampshire has an excellent programme of SEN training for teachers in the county. I recommend that the Minister looks at that as a model of how such training can be offered. However, in north Hampshire it can be practically difficult for teachers to access that training because of the problems caused by a lack of cover in schools. It can be difficult for them to get the support to attend some of those courses. That is not always the case, but it can be.
	I urge the Minister to review the report that was issued earlier this month. I think that he would find it useful, as it could help him to understand how these measures are working on the ground.
	The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West is doing superb work. She has highlighted this important issue and brought many people's concerns to light. I wish her well and hope that she will consider my amendment in the light of my comments.

Kevin Brennan: I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) about my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson), who is quite a special person herself. My hon. Friend knows from our private conversations what I think about her communication skills. She is an extremely effective advocate on the subject and I congratulate her on the progress that her Bill has made so far and will continue to make today, we hope.
	I praise the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) for her involvement and interest in and passion for the subject. In Committee, she said that the purpose of the new clause is to ensure that local authorities make available clear information to parents on the range of special educational provision that is available—a laudable aim that I think that everybody would support. Of course, such information should already be available. That is always the difficulty as we try to will the end result. The information should be available through several avenues.
	Under the Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 2002, local authorities must publish information about their detailed arrangements and policies for special educational provision. That includes the provision made by an authority in its community, voluntary and special schools for people with SEN and the use made by them of such special schools maintained by other authorities. They must also publish information about the authorities' arrangements and policies in respect of the use of non-maintained special and independent schools and the special educational provision provided otherwise than at school. The information must be published no later than six weeks before the date by which parents may express a preference for a school for admission that school year.
	In addition, under the Education Act 1996 local authorities must keep the arrangements that they make for special educational provision under review. Under separate regulations covering local education authorities' provision of information on special educational needs, authorities must publish information on the general arrangements they make for auditing, planning, monitoring and reviewing special educational provision in their area. The information must be made available on the authority's website and in written form to anybody on request.
	From our debate, I understand that not all local authorities meet their duty—it is indeed a duty—to publish such information. If Members have evidence of non-compliance, such as the reports that have been cited today, and they bring it directly and specifically to our attention we will investigate. The Secretary of State can intervene to direct local authorities to carry out their duties.

Kevin Brennan: I will certainly undertake to consider that suggestion in conjunction with my colleague, Lord Adonis, who has direct responsibility for such matters—I speak on them in the House of Commons—and I certainly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Basingstoke in relation to the sanctions that are available and any further measures that could be taken.
	Amendment No. 2, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, would place requirements on the Secretary of State to collect specific information on the training received by members of the school work force. Again, I do not apologise for saying that any new data requirements—I am sure that the hon. Lady's friends in local government would agree, as would mine—must be considered carefully in the light of the burdens placed on schools, local authorities and other data providers to comply. Although I agree that our principal concern is the burden placed on parents and young people, we must ensure that we do not divert resources from meeting those needs.
	Careful thought also needs to be given to whether the information collected is likely to be of the right quality and meaningful in a way that could bring benefit to those people who are trying to help. I am not immediately convinced that collecting the data proposed would, in itself, lead to improvements in the ability of the school work force to support and help children with special educational needs and disabilities and to improve outcomes—obviously, that is at the bottom of all this—for those children and young people, which is what all hon. Members want, or that that would necessarily influence the prioritisation of professional development in SEN and disabilities at school or local level.
	I believe instead that improvements will come through the work that we are already taking forward with the Training and Development Agency for Schools—the TDA—our national strategies and others both to improve initial teacher training and to provide resources to support the continuing professional development of those staff who are already in post. Again, we share that objective across the House. I should like to say something about that before I return to the specifics of the data collection.
	The TDA has been developing new specialist units for trainee teachers that are designed to improve their skills in identifying, assessing and supporting the needs of pupils with SEN and disabilities. Those units, which were developed for primary undergraduate initial teacher training courses, have been successfully piloted and will be rolled out to all course providers this September. That is the right way to do things. We are being urged to move more quickly and I understand people's concerns, but it is right that those initiatives should be properly piloted and tested before they are rolled out universally.
	Work is also under way to develop similar materials for secondary undergraduate courses and for postgraduate certification in education courses, and that will be rolled out in September 2009. Ofsted has also been undertaking a thematic review of the journey taken by trainee teachers in acquiring SEN and disability knowledge and skills during their initial training and induction. The results of that review are expected shortly, and they will help us to understand where further improvements can be made—again, based on the evidence.
	For those who are already in post, our inclusion development programme, which was launched in October 2007—the hon. Member for Basingstoke made some observations about that, and I shall refer to them in a moment—will help to boost the confidence of teachers and other staff in a number of SEN areas. The opening round of the inclusion development programme has focused on training in relation to the communication difficulties experienced by children. Of course, that includes dyslexia, which has been mentioned during the debate. New specially produced training material is being distributed to schools via their local authorities. In subsequent rounds, the IDP will focus on the autistic spectrum disorders, ASD, and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties, BESD.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke is critical of the IDP because she feels that it does not have support beyond the Government's walls and that, out in the country, there is an upswell of opposition to it. The IDP was developed in conjunction with I-CAN and Dyslexia Action, and it is endorsed by a wide range of voluntary organisations involved in communications and dyslexia. I fear that we may never be able to please all the various organisations—whether teaching unions or others—who write to us at the House and send their briefings to Front and Back Benchers, but we do not introduce such programmes without seeking input from stakeholders. They have a very extensive input into the IDP, which is widely endorsed. So I should like to paint a more complete picture of it, rather than the partial pictured painted by the hon. Lady.
	The Department also already plans to introduce a school work force census from 2010—again, that has been referred to during the debate—and it will provide the Department with individual-level information that relates to all teachers and support staff. I accept that the census is not intended to cover the detail of SEN-related training that is sought in amendment No. 2, but any data collection exercise on that scale requires a long lead-in time. Some data providers are already calling on us to reduce the existing scope of the planned census. It is a continual tension in government that hon. Members call on us to reduce burdens, bureaucracy, red tape and so on and that, sometimes almost before they have reached the full stop in the same sentence, they then ask us to impose more data collection and more activities on local government and schools.
	We must try to make a judgment on these matters, and any data collection exercise on a big scale must be considered very carefully and not undertaken without extremely good evidence that it will produce results on the front line. It is important to strike the right balance between collecting useful data and minimising the burden on service providers. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware of the old Welsh proverb, "You don't make the goose any fatter by weighing it all the time." We must ensure that the activities that we undertake will result in real delivery on the front line.
	The census may prove to be a suitable vehicle for collecting such information, but it is a complex undertaking. We are piloting it in 2008-09 so that we can ensure that the burdens placed on schools are in fact manageable. If the pilots are successful, the census will be extended nationally in 2010. After that, we would be prepared to enter a dialogue with the interested partners about how the scope and coverage of the census might be expanded in future years. Perhaps information about the training and qualifications of teachers and support staff could be collected with effect from 2012 as an additional data item, but that would be contingent on several factors, including burdens on schools. I am not going to apologise for that, because it affects burdens for pupils at the front line, including burdens on schools and other candidates imposed by extra data items, of which there are likely to be many, because there is a long list of data collections that people would like to be undertaken but which have to be weighed carefully in relation to the burdens that they can create. We must be careful not to place unreasonable and undue burdens on schools and local authorities, and in the light of that, I invite hon. Members to withdraw amendment No. 2.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) referred to services for deaf children. I have reminded the House of the all-party parliamentary group announcement by Lord Adonis about British sign language, and I can provide more details. The tender has been published, and we look forward to organisations coming forward to run the project, which will allow families with deaf children to make informed choices about whether their children should use British sign language. That has been welcomed by a wide range of organisations representing deaf children, and we are working closely with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the National Deaf Children's Society to address the gap in attainment between deaf and hearing-impaired children and their peers, so I hope that that information is useful for the hon. Lady.
	Part of the inclusion and development programme is the Removing Barriers to Achievement initiative, which is based on what is known about effective teaching for SEN children. It is a national programme, and we have just published a DVD on meeting the needs of children with dyslexia and speech, language and communication disorders. We are now developing materials for teaching children with autism, which will be followed by material on social, behavioural and emotional difficulties. I hope that that information is useful to the House, given the points that have been made.
	Finally, amendment No. 1 would oblige the Secretary of State to publish a report on how special educational needs information may assist him or other persons to improve the well-being of children in England with special educational needs. I am sure that it is intended to develop the purpose of the Bill and improve the provision of SEN information, but it is unnecessarily prescriptive. It will limit the way in which the Secretary of State can publish information to assist him or others in improving the well-being of children with SEN in England. The amendment would mean that that information would have to be published in the form of a report, which would not be helpful.
	The Bill as drafted does not preclude the possibility of a report being published, but it allows information to be published in any way or form that the Secretary of State considers helpful in promoting the well-being of children with SEN. A report is not the only way—and it may not be the best one—of achieving that end. As ever, I want to be helpful, because I understand the point that has been made by hon. Members and the sincere intention behind the amendment. The Department publishes an SEN statistical bulletin every year. Following the passage of the Bill, I undertake to look at how we can expand that bulletin to include more information—for example, information on attainment—to highlight which children with different types of SEN are not making as much progress as we would like, and to point the way towards action to address underperformance.
	The problem with the amendment is that it appears to force the Secretary of State to abandon that approach in the bulletin and instead publish a discursive report on SEN information. Publishing only a report would not be the best way of achieving the ends that we share across the House and that we all want to achieve.

Kevin Brennan: It is the job of the Secretary of State to do that, and it is right that he should do so. Moreover, in the Education and Skills Bill, a general well-being duty has been introduced in relation to children's welfare. It is therefore appropriate that it should be the Secretary of State who performs that role. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting this, but the Secretary of State is not trying to hide anything; he is making a judgment about how best to exercise his duty to promote the welfare of children in the broadest sense by publishing that information.
	I do not want to shut down completely the possibility that the Secretary of State may publish the sort of report envisaged by the amendment. As hon. Members will know, we have asked Ofsted to review progress in special educational needs next year. If Her Majesty's chief inspector, having conducted that review, recommends that we publish the sort of report proposed in amendment, I undertake to consider that recommendation very carefully. I hope that in the light of what I have said that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole will not press the amendment further. I will conclude simply by reiterating my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West on the Bill, and I wish it godspeed in its remaining stages.

Sharon Hodgson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am delighted to be here for this stage of the Bill, especially as we have now all agreed that it has real potential to deliver for the 1.6 million children who are identified as having special educational needs. I hope that after today we can move discussions forward before, as we hope, it enters the other place. Once again, I place on the record my thanks to Jonathan Tanner, my parliamentary researcher, for his tireless work and commitment to the Bill. He is now as passionate about SEN as are some of us here today, and he is knowledgeable about the issue too.
	Our debates on Second Reading, in Committee and this morning have provided an invaluable opportunity to raise issues concerning special educational needs. We have been able to achieve a broad consensus on the need for the Bill and for further action to tackle areas in which SEN children do not get the quality of support that they all so richly deserve. I note that we are back here on a Friday, and yet again, it is fair to say that the House, including the Press Gallery, is not packed to the rafters. Other forms of political entertainment are, of course, on offer to the media today, not least in the north-west. However, if we succeed in our endeavour to get this legislation passed, those involved from both sides of the House should get credit.

Christopher Chope: I congratulate the hon. Lady on the Bill and its progress. Has she had any indication of when the Government would it to commence?

Sharon Hodgson: The short answer is yes. Baroness Pitkeathley is to guide the Bill through the House of Lords on my behalf, and I am sure that she will seek cross-party support in the other place. It should pass through without too much damage, I hope.
	Our debates have been held in a constructive manner that has not been entirely devoid of criticism and differences of opinion—nor should it have been. I should like to thank my colleagues across the Benches for their contributions to and support for the Bill. As others have said, it is an example of how the party political divide need not always dominate the proceedings of Parliament. I have been enlightened by the expertise, experience and commitment that my colleagues have shown to the issues that they feel need to be aired.
	I should also point out that early-day motion 619 now has 161 signatures from both Government and Opposition Members who support the work that we are doing here today. It is welcome that the Government should also have lent their support to the Bill, and I believe that that represents a willingness to work with MPs on both sides to achieve change. Of course, we will be pushing them for further concessions over the months to come, and I hope that these suggestions will be heard with open ears.
	On Second Reading, I listed all the organisations that have provided me with support. Having their expert knowledge on hand has been an invaluable resource throughout this process, and I hope that we can go on to reward their support and unswerving commitment to this cause. Each organisation still has areas that it would like to be addressed, and I will touch on some of those later. I hope that we will be able to equip those campaigners with the tool of improved information about SEN so that they can continue their work. I have said all along that I want the Bill to be a catalyst for change, and I sincerely hope that it will be so. Information alone will not make a monumental difference, but we all know how hard it is for Government to ignore the facts. We already know that there are facts out there among reams of information already collected, but the Bill should ensure that we gather further figures that will demonstrate a compelling case for stepping up the pace of reform.
	The Bill has struck a chord with members of the public. I have received a number of letters from people across the country who are supportive of the work that we are trying to do. I want to draw on a few examples in order to underline the importance of the Bill and the need to ensure that we keep our foot to the floor on further progress. I hope that hon. Members present will indulge me in doing so and agree that these letters raise some powerful points.
	My first example concerns a woman who has worked in an organisation supporting dyslexic pupils for more than 14 years. Many of the letters are about the struggles of dyslexic children. One woman wrote to me to say that she does not want to hear any more stories about failing schools. A particularly moving part of her letter describes the experience of a boy who was
	"embarrassed in his class because, when the rest of the children were taking a test, he was left out and asked to read a book instead. He was so upset that his mother enquired what the test had been. The young teacher, just out of training college, explained that it was an intelligence test and she did not want him to be upset because he wouldn't be able to do it. At the mother's request, the Head arranged for the boy to do the test later and took his answers verbally. The child came out top of the class."
	As the letter continues, it highlights a familiar theme:
	"Nothing will improve for dyslexic pupils until all teachers are trained to recognise the common signs of dyslexia and are given a good basic understanding about it—a dyslexic person is not necessarily lacking in intelligence and can be extremely bright; dyslexia is not just about reading, problems with spelling and poor organisation are just as common; there are things even a non-specialist teacher can do to make life easier for the dyslexic child. At present, learning about dyslexia is an option only on teacher training courses. Surely dyslexia must be the single most common reason for failure in school and all teachers should be properly prepared to recognise it."
	I have also received letters from parents who know the sheer frustration of watching their children having to battle the system to make the progress that we know they are capable of and fully deserve. Here is another example:
	"As a parent with a dyslexic child, I am well aware of the many problems my daughter experienced at primary school and those which she is still experiencing in developing coping strategies for her dyslexia and I wanted to share my own experience with you to highlight major fault lines that currently exist in our schools.
	My daughter's teacher said to me during her last year of Primary school in 2007, that she knew nothing about dyslexia and was interested in learning more from me. I found this unacceptable as I fear for my daughter's future in secondary school, but this is the reality. Some of our schools have a higher standard of learning support, however this is not reflected across all primary and secondary schools in the United Kingdom.
	Dyslexic children are extremely gifted children, of which dyslexia is not a learning disability but instead requires a different approach to learning, which is not currently available in our schools at the present time in my view."
	Not everything that I have received is in agreement with the current way of thinking. The same letter says that
	"the pressure of OFSTED reports and meeting targets has created a vacuum of dishonesty in schools putting children with the slightest learning difficulties, such as poor handwriting etc into groups with Dyslexia etc to basically fiddle the figures so that when school results are completed the school doesn't appear on paper as failing to meet targets. The learning support groups at my daughter's school receive 2 twenty minute sessions a week, called 'clicker or catch-up' whereby each pupil sits at a computer and writes one sentence. It is in this group that the real patchwork quilt exists, as you have children who shouldn't be there, as mentioned above, then there are those who have fallen behind and do need to 'catch up' and that leaves the children with severe learning difficulties and dyslexia. All these children require a different approach to learning and therefore it is impossible to support them all as one group in this way."
	Recognising that underlines the importance of ensuring that we have a work force who are skilled in meeting the individual needs of every child. That process will take time, and we need to ensure that, before we tailor teaching approaches to individual children, we are able to say exactly what they need extra support with. That will come only by categorising all children who are identified as having special educational needs.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Could I just remind hon. Members who wish to contribute to the Third Reading debate that we are discussing what is in the Bill?

Sharon Hodgson: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance.
	If hon. Members will indulge me, I have one more letter about my Bill, from an ex-journalist. She had retrained as a teacher via a postgraduate certificate of education, and her experience of SEN provision is informed by having a 10-year old son with suspected Asperger's and separation anxiety disorder. She wrote to tell me of her experiences and observations during her PGCE:
	"SEN was briefly covered—one lecture—on the PGCE course, and the broad issues were run through again on each of my two school placements by the head of SEN. But there isn't time to learn enough about anything on a one year PGCE course, let alone how to recognise the signs of the many different SEN needs in the classroom. Training in school must be the way forward, but my experience is that teachers barely have time to go to the loo in school."
	Again, this first-hand experience highlights the need to do more to ensure adequate ongoing training opportunities for teachers in schools. The letter goes on to describe a particular difficulty in identifying and supporting a dyslexic child:
	"in my second placement I identified one pupil in particular that I thought may be dyslexic, and I alerted the SEN department to that...a very good SEN department... This was a girl whose parents were Somalian, but she was born and educated in this country. I was told that it was not possible or worthwhile to test her dyslexia. The results of the test would not be accepted by the LA because there was a possibility that there could be an element in her poor writing which is brought about by her having English as an additional language. If this is a general rule it would mean that not one child from a refugee or immigrant background with dyslexia is being picked up in our schools."
	I have spoken to the Department about that, because, as I am sure Members will agree, if it were the case it would be very worrying. According to the statistical first release, children from all ethnic backgrounds are identified as having SEN. Although that does not prove that they have English as an additional language, it does calm my initial fear that their SEN was not being picked up at all. It is also worth noting that incidences of SEN among children categorised as being of black ethnic origin are higher than the national average. I hope the Minister has taken heed of that.
	I am nearing the end of my self-created evidence session, but I want to draw attention to a few more of the points that have been raised with me. The letter from which I have just quoted also states:
	"In a third school I identified a boy who clearly had a dysfunction linked to his handwriting—it was severe. He was in year 9, and it was clear just from glancing at the school's own tests that there was a major gap between his ability to read—15 year old plus—and to write—which was at about a 9-year-old level. He was working hard, clearly very bright, had a wide knowledge of words—but could not write them down correctly, or see that they were wrong."
	The writer adds:
	"The school had not picked it up. Incidentally I was asked by the head of SEN as a general rule NOT TO GIVE the school's test results on writing and reading to parents—I gained the impression that the fear was that parents might then want something done about them! In fact I did give the results to this boy's mother and suggested she look for private diagnosis (they weren't poor) in order to get a speedy response."
	The experiences of the people who wrote to me varied vastly. Some praised their local schools, their local authorities, their parent partnership officers, their sons' or daughters' special educational needs co-ordinators, or even individual teachers. The examples that I have chosen help to illustrate the points that have been raised so far during our debates on the Bill, but the variety of the correspondence that I have received does even more to highlight the fact that SEN provision across the country is itself extremely varied in terms of both quality and quantity. Wherever people live in the United Kingdom, if they have a son or daughter with SEN they cannot currently guarantee that that child will receive the same support as a child with the same needs living five or 10 miles down the road.
	I received an interesting submission about the choice of language in the Bill. I have learned very quickly that every word counts in legislation, and I was enlightened by the view put to me by the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. It gave me food for thought, and I hope that it will do the same for other Members. It states:
	"My suggestion stems from the knowledge that there is considerable unease with the use of the term 'special educational needs', within disabled, practitioner and academic circles. In a nutshell, the notion that a child has special educational needs represents thinking within the 'medical model of disability', i.e. a perception that disability is the consequence of a person's impairments.
	The alternative (initially put forward by disabled people but now regarded by many as the contemporary, if not dominant, perception of disability) is known as the 'social model of disability' and sees disability as an experience (not a state) arising out of an interaction between a person's impairments and inflexible structures around them. Within this frame of mind, for example, a child with dyslexia is disabled not solely by the way their mind processes written information, but also by an educational system which privileges excellence in reading and writing in ways that the majority find easy to process. Perhaps less controversial might be the words of a wheelchair user who said something along the lines of: 'Using a wheelchair is my way of getting from one place to another. When faced with a flight of stairs, I am disabled. When faced with a ramp, I am not.'"
	That relates to a point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Dyslexia is not necessarily an impairment in itself. There are ways in which children with dyslexia can be helped to lead full and fulfilling lives. I shall say more about that in the context of well-being and the outcomes to which the Bill refers. Although I have not changed the wording of the Bill because of that submission, it gives a valuable insight into the thoughts of those involved in shaping our understanding of both disability and SEN.
	A further and final contribution came from an experienced educational psychologist based in the north-east, who said:
	"The issues that arise from this, and that concern me most are those of unrecognised need, the alarming degree to which otherwise bright children underachieve, and the far reaching emotional consequences for children and young people who see themselves as failing when they know they are as able, or even more so, than the next child. The loss of confidence, lowering of self esteem and drop in motivation can have devastating consequences for a child's educational future, and personal well-being and development."
	I am sure that that will resonate with all of us.
	We now have a flavour of what has come into my postbag from members of the public concerning this Bill, and it is clear that they want us to achieve even more than we can perhaps achieve in one go with a solitary private Member's Bill. However, let us look at what we can achieve with this Bill as it stands.
	The Bill makes two substantive provisions by amending the Education Act 1996. First, it requires the Secretary of State to exercise certain of his powers under the Act with a view to securing the provision of information about children in England with SEN that would be likely to assist in improving the well-being of those children. Secondly, it requires the Secretary of State to publish, or to arrange to be published, in each calendar year information about children in England with SEN, the publication of which will be likely to assist in improving their well-being.
	Several recurring themes have been raised in the discussion so far, including the availability and uptake of teacher training in SEN, the need to be able to identify best practice and roll it out across the country, and the need for assurances that parent partnership services are able to operate truly independently from the local authority to which they are linked.
	We have not looked yet, however, at how the Government currently define SEN, but it is important when reading the Bill to know exactly what is meant, so I shall take a moment to outline their working definition of it. Under the 1996 Act, a child has SEN if they
	"have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age; or have a disability which prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children of the same age",
	or they would fall within these definitions if special educational provision were not made for them.
	The Bill also refers to special educational provision, and we have not yet looked at how the powers that be define that either. According to the Department for Children, Schools and Families, special educational provision means,
	"for children of two or over, educational provision which is additional to, or otherwise different from, the educational provision made generally for children of their age in schools maintained by the"
	local authority, other than special schools, or for children under two, educational provision of any kind. These definitions seem sensible, and they have, indeed, caused little controversy. It is welcome to be working from a legislative base which sets out in such non-contentious terms exactly what we mean by SEN.
	On Second Reading, I set out some of the landscape across the UK concerning SEN, and I highlighted the fact that about 2 million children—it is 1.6 million, to be exact—are identified as having SEN and that there are significant regional variations in levels of recording across the country. We already have a picture of SEN across the country. We know that 229,110 had statements of SEN in 2007, which is 2.8 per cent. of the school population. A further 1,333,430 pupils have SEN without statements, which is 16.4 per cent. of the school population. The vast majority—57.2 per cent.—of children with statements were taught in mainstream schools, and 36 per cent. were taught in maintained special schools.
	We know that since 1997-98 funding has increased by £1,440 per pupil, from £3,050 in 1997-98 to £4,490 in 2006-07. By the end of 2007-08, the real terms funding per pupil will be £1,680—or 55 per cent.—higher than in 1997-98. Local authority planned expenditure on SEN has increased from £2.8 billion in 2001-02 to £4.5 billion in 2006-07. That represents an increase of 60 per cent., and some 13 per cent. of all education spending. Of that £4.5 billion, £1.8 billion is delegated to mainstream schools and £1.3 billion to maintained special schools, and £506 million is spent on placing children with SEN statements at independent and non-maintained special schools.
	Despite debate over inclusion, we know that since the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, the proportion of children with SEN statements taught in all special schools as a proportion of the number of children with statements has increased by about 1 per cent, despite a fall in the number of children with statements.
	When I set out to try to create this Bill it was important to me to know exactly what information was already available for my local area. I examined the provision across Gateshead and Sunderland, my two local authority areas. Hon. Members will be able to make a comparison with the situation in their own constituencies, if they have the relevant data with them—one could say that that will form the beginning of our proposed scrutiny of regional variations in provision.
	In January 2007, Gateshead had 15,732 pupils in maintained primary schools, of whom 1.1 per cent. had a statement. That compares with figures of 1.3 per cent. for the north-east and 1.5 per cent nationally. Some 3.9 per cent. of the pupils were receiving provision at school action plus level, which compares with a regional figure of 6.4 per cent. and a national figure of 11.8 per cent. Some 14.8 per cent. of the pupils received provision at school action level, compared with north-east and national figures of 11.8 per. cent. That means that 19.8 per cent. of primary school pupils in Gateshead were identified as having SEN, which is comparable with the figures of 19.4 per cent. for the north-east region and 19.2 per cent. for England.
	In January 2007, Sunderland, my other local authority area, had 23,707 pupils in maintained primary schools, of whom 0.9 per cent. had a statement. That compares with figures of 1.3 per cent. for the north-east region and 1.5 per cent. nationally. Some 5.6 per cent. of the pupils were receiving provision at school action plus level, compared with 6.4 per cent. regionally and 11.8 per cent. nationally, and 14.1 per cent. of the pupils received provision at school action level, compared with 11.8 per cent. both regionally and nationally. That means that 20.6 per cent. of primary school pupils in Sunderland were identified as having SEN, compared with figures of 19.4 per cent. for the north-east region and 19.2 per cent. in England—thus, Sunderland's figure is slightly higher.
	Even across the two local authorities in my constituency there is a slight variation in identifying SEN and issuing statements to children, further evidence of which lies in the number of statements issued. In January 2007, Gateshead was maintaining 896 statements of SEN, whereas Sunderland was maintaining 1,204. Its figure is higher than Gateshead's, but Sunderland is a larger local authority with a bigger school population. According to my analysis—I am not that good on a calculator—Gateshead awards marginally more statements per pupil than Sunderland.
	I was also interested to note the difference in the length of time that it took to complete statements. In January 2007, Gateshead completed 95.5 per cent. of its statutory SEN assessments and drafted a statement within the statutory 18 weeks, whereas Sunderland drafted 100 per cent. of statements within 18 weeks—the average performance for local authorities in England was 96 per cent. So it seems that it is possible to find out how local authorities are performing in terms of figures for a host of data sets. There were many more that I could have cited, but I decided to spare the House that ordeal.
	Those facts do not, however, give us the most important information. That is why it is vital to measure outcomes for children with SEN, rather than just keeping an eye on the numbers in a doomed attempt to derive understanding. We have all accepted that it is important that we improve the current data. If we are to do that effectively, they need to be improved over and above existing data collection. I want to take a look at what data are already being collected so that we will all know what needs to be increased and we can be aware of the true impact of this Bill once an annual publication exists.
	The sources relevant to the collection of data on SEN are the pupil level annual school census, or PLASC as it is often called; the SEN2 survey on statements issued by local authorities; the OC2 collection, which is on outcome indicators for looked-after children; the Children in Need survey, on children's social services provision; and section 52 returns, which are on funding.
	PLASC collects individual level pupil characteristic data. These include indicators relating to pupils' SEN, namely, no identified provision, school action, school action plus or statement of SEN. For pupils at school action plus and statements of SEN, the type of need is also collected, together with flags to indicate whether the pupil is a member of an SEN unit or of resourced provision.
	I am delighted that the Minister has already undertaken to look at extending categorisation of type of SEN to school action level. If carried out, that would lead to around a million families being put in the picture as to exactly what need their child has. That will not only relieve uncertainty for the families, but will ensure that teachers pay greater attention to determining what support a child needs. Of course we cannot achieve that to the levels that we would desire without lifting levels of training, and that is a subject to which I will turn later in my speech.
	The SEN data from the census can be cross-tabulated with other characteristic data collected via the same means, such as age, gender, free school meals eligibility, ethnic group and first language. Pupil characteristic data, including SEN indicators, collected via the school census have been matched to attainment data via the national pupil database, which means that analysis of pupil attainment by the various SEN fields is also available. Admittedly, it takes some digging to find it but it is there.
	Coverage of the school census does not extend to independent schools, pupil referral units or general hospital schools. For these types of schools, just overall totals for the number of pupils with SEN with or without statements are collected. Those institutions are covered by the annual school census, which is an institution level collection, so no pupil level data which can be cross-referenced with other collections are available.
	The annual school census collects information on the number of pupils with certain characteristics, such as gender, eligibility for free school meals, SEN with statements and SEN without statements. The current intention is that pupil-level school census arrangements will be extended to pupil referral units in 2009. Therefore, there is no need for that to be addressed through the Bill. The SEN2 survey is a local authority level survey, focusing on the number and placement of pupils with statements of SEN. Although I have tried to restrict the level of debate during this Bill on statements, it is important that we understand what is collected in this field as well.
	The SEN2 survey asks local authorities to give information about the number of children for whom the authority made a statement for the first time in the previous year and the number of children for whom the authority maintains a statement of special educational needs. It also requires local authorities to record the number of statements issued in the previous year, divided by different categories, as well as the number of children who have been assessed for whom a statutory assessment was completed in the past year but for whom it was decided not to issue a statement of special educational needs.
	The survey also monitors the number of children who have moved from special independent schools into mainstream schools. I imagine that that information will become increasingly useful in informing the progress of SEN strategies in local authorities that are trying to reduce the use of statements by increasing the amount of additional resources attached to mainstream schools. That process is under review in Gateshead, and I am monitoring the situation carefully to ensure that all children's needs are met, and that the requirement to meet those needs comes before that to meet other targets.
	The SEN2 survey also covers the number of statements of special educational needs that have been reviewed and discontinued in a calendar year. The survey provides useful information with which to monitor the development of schools and local authorities in dealing with SEN, but not the development of pupils. That is why my Bill focuses on the importance of measuring pupil level outcomes.
	The OC2 survey is also taken at local authority level, and concerns looked-after children. The incidence of SEN among looked-after children is often far higher than among other children. Many campaigners would like local authority funding for supporting children with SEN to be ring-fenced, so that we can ensure that it is spent on those who need it the most. Local authorities are required to show, on the section 52 return, how much they delegate to schools for SEN individually and how much they have budgeted to spend on SEN. Schools are not required to account for SEN expenditure separately, as that would be particularly cumbersome and bureaucratic. Also, it would be difficult to pinpoint exactly what constitutes SEN spending at an individual school level.
	Reams of information are out there. It is usually available from the Department for Children, Schools and Families website as first statistical releases. Additional information can also be found on RAISEonline. The Department says that the system allows mainstream schools to analyse SEN pupil outcomes for both attainment and progress, and to determine whether performance is significantly higher or lower than expected. The reports also allow schools to analyse how SEN performance might be related to free school meal status, or other pupil characteristics of relevance. Also, schools can identify SEN pupils for whom specific intervention has taken place and evaluate pupil outcomes.
	Although that information should contain some of the detail needed to assess attainment outcomes for pupils with SEN, we need to build on that and consider wider outcomes. It is all very well for schools to have access to that information, but the work that is required to analyse and act on the findings might end up taking a back seat. We need the information to be readily available, in an accessible form, for public scrutiny, but, currently, it is not available to parents or the public at all. We need to protect pupil anonymity, and we do not want to pressure schools unduly, but I hope that we can ensure that wider information is openly available, rather than being tucked away in a blinding avalanche of tables and figures somewhere in the backwaters of the internet, available only to schools and local authorities.
	In shaping the Bill, I looked at the information that cannot be collected and why. It is rightly a primary consideration that we do not want to increase the burden of box-ticking for teachers, but where a short-term increase in administration might lead to a longer-term reduction, we might need to strike a balance. However, any recorded information must always be high quality and clear in usefulness.
	Campaigners are keen that there should be a change in the categories that are used to record SEN types, and I am pleased that the Minister has said that they will be reassessed after the 2009-10 Ofsted review into SEN provision. Some people are also concerned about why the number of statements is being reduced in certain local authority areas. As I have outlined, we can monitor those trends through local authority returns under the SEN2 survey.
	One of the main issues that has been raised, and rightly so, is teacher training. Before looking at what can be done to improve teacher training, I want to examine the guidelines set out for teachers to help them identify children's needs. As we know, those guidelines are set out in the SEN code of practice. It states that if a pupil is known to have special educational needs when they arrive at the school, the head teacher, the SEN co-ordinator, literacy and numeracy co-ordinators and departmental and pastoral colleagues should use information from the pupil's primary school to provide starting points for the development of an appropriate curriculum for the pupil; identify and focus attention on the pupil's skills; and highlight areas for early action to support the pupil within the class, as well as ensuring ongoing observation and feedback. They should also keeps teachers and parents up to speed with the pupil's achievements and experiences, and ensure that the pupil has a chance to show their knowledge in informal circumstances. In addition, the code of practice encourages the involvement of both pupil and parents in developing a plan to meet the pupil's needs.
	All this is sensible stuff, but it is worth noting that these procedures are for pupils who are already identified as having SEN when they arrive at the school. Even then, I can testify from personal experience that this transition does not always go smoothly. In fact, it can be rife with problems and new hurdles to overcome, which mostly arise from the lack of experience or even awareness among the bulk of teachers of how to teach or even spot a child with SEN.
	As most Members will be aware, my son Joseph is severely dyslexic. He is now 14 and was eventually statemented in year 5, aged 10. He is of above-average intelligence, but has a reading age of only 6.5 years. When he recently changed schools, most of his teachers were not told of his SEN due to an administrative oversight at the school. Most of his new teachers did not recognise him as being dyslexic until they were told about it—even after weeks of teaching him. For those who know the signs, it so obvious that Joseph is severely dyslexic. This is a telling testimony, even if I do not spell it out in detail.
	Teachers are encouraged, however, to look for pupils who
	"despite receiving differentiated learning opportunities make little or no progress even when teaching approaches are targeted particularly in a pupil's identified area of weakness or who show signs of difficulty in developing literacy or mathematics skills that result in poor attainment in some curriculum areas".
	That is how the code of practice tells teachers how to spot a child who needs intervention, but it does not give strong enough guidance on how to distinguish the severity or category of SEN. That is where the training should come in.
	At the moment, schools have a statutory responsibility to ensure that the necessary provision is made for any child with SEN. They must ensure that teachers are aware that a child has SEN, and stress the importance of teachers' identifying SEN. Schools must also consult the local education authority and other school governing bodies to create a co-ordinated SEN strategy where desirable and possible. Further, schools must take steps to ensure that, where possible, SEN children can take part in activities available to pupils who do not have SEN. Finally, schools should also report to parents on the implementation of their SEN policy and have continuing regard to the SEN code of practice. The whole procedure would be better informed, however, if the teaching work force were better skilled in identifying and teaching children with SEN.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of parent partnership services. I have held discussions with both constituents and experts on this, and it seems that, again, we are faced with considerable regional variation in the services provided. As I said earlier, it is right to point out that it is absolutely vital that parent partnerships be able to deliver impartial information to parents. Having said that, I am confident that the majority of parent partnership services are doing a good job, but there is merit in keeping the situation under close review. As I stated at the start of my speech, the main thrust of the Bill is to ensure that we improve the monitoring of outcomes for children with SEN. There is agreement across the sector that that would be a welcome development.
	It is important to know what data are already used to try to improve the outcomes so that, if the Bill proceeds to the other place, we can look back in times to come and hold the Government to account on their implementation of the legislation. Six mechanisms are identified for improving outcomes for SEN children. First, academic achievement is monitored. SEN data have shown that much of the improvement in overall academic performance can be traced to increased attainment by children with SEN. Data on the varying attainment of children with different specific forms of SEN has been analysed for the first time and will be used to inform more tailored teaching.
	Secondly, policy is kept under review. Thirdly, I am told that RAISEonline is already used to outline performance. I have already outlined what evidence the system provides for ongoing school improvement. I reiterate my hope that the use of RAISE use as a tool will increase over time. Fourthly, P scales are used to analyse the progress of pupils operating below level 1 of the national curriculum. The systems enable the attainment and progress of a range of SEN pupils to be analysed and compared across a range of pupil needs.
	The information collected also informs national strategies. I understand that regional advisory teams work alongside the national SEN strategy team. I hope that they will be encouraged to support and challenge local authorities as they seek to bring about improvements in identified schools using increasingly sophisticated data for pupils at school and local authority level.
	I look forward to the roll-out of indicators that monitor how effective schools are in reducing the gap between the attainment of children with SEN and that of those children with no SEN. The indicators have been included in the national indicator set for local government that will be used from 2008-09. That is an important step forward.
	The mechanisms only concern attainment and, of course, the aim of this Bill is to concern ourselves with wider aspects of how to improve the outcomes of children with SEN. That is why I pressed so hard to have the outcomes listed on the face of the Bill.
	As I have said, I have received a great deal of support from across the SEN sector and I want to draw on some of the points that have been raised in relation to the Bill. TreeHouse is a national charity for autism education whose vision is to transform through education the lives of children with autism and thereby the lives of their families. TreeHouse was established in 1997 by a group of parents. It runs a school for children and young people with autism and campaigns nationally for better autism education. I look forward to visiting the school in the near future.
	The Special Educational Consortium is an umbrella group that represents a number of charities with an interest in SEN. The consortium says in its briefing on the Bill that
	"the lack of information on children with SEN prevents a clear focus on whether the provision made for these children is promoting the best possible outcomes for them. The lack of information at a central government level has been highlighted in responses to parliamentary questions, which often concede, 'This information is not collected centrally.' The information this Bill will secure is required to provide a better basis for national planning, particularly as the pattern of needs change over time."
	The support of such a large number of organisations in the shape of the SEC is clear evidence that we are taking the right step. I would like to thank Brian Lamb again for the support and guidance he has given me and my team. I am also pleased to have had the ongoing support of Dyslexia Action. Shirley Cramer has been behind me from the inception of the Bill and I want to thank her and her team once again.
	Dyslexia is not a minority issue. As many as one in 10 people have dyslexia, and 4 per cent. have it severely. Two to three children in every classroom may be affected. There is a clear link between unidentified dyslexia and poor literacy, longer term failure at school, limited work opportunities, unemployment, poverty and crime. With the right specialist support dyslexia need not be a barrier to achievement. Dyslexia Action says:
	"One of the big questions for parents, teachers and schools, and organisations like ours, is around the lack of specific information about what is happening regarding SEN in English schools. The Special Educational Needs (Information) Bill demands transparency for this complex area that is often frustratingly patchy—good in some places, bad in others."
	We can but raise expectations for children with SEN by increasing information about their progress. Improved information will help to highlight areas that need greater attention through personal or financial support.
	Some good things are beginning to happen. The Department for Children, Schools and Families' inclusion development programme, in which Dyslexia Action works with the children's communication charity, I CAN, to provide expert input and training materials, will improve awareness and recognition of dyslexia and communications problems. The programme is being implemented and represents the right course of action to improve outcomes for children with dyslexia and communication difficulties.
	Dyslexia Action lobbies for early intervention, which is critical if children with special learning disabilities are to be prevented from developing the long-term problems associated with poor literacy skills, such as reduced employment opportunities that can lead to long-term unemployment. Even worse, children can go on to lead a life of crime, starting with youth disorder, which incurs the huge financial burden that time spent in and out of prison brings to the taxpayer. It is no coincidence that the percentage of prisoners with dyslexia and other SEN is far higher than in the rest of society. The implications of that failure are a huge cost to the individual and to the UK economy. Government statistics tell us that poor skills cost the UK taxpayer approximately £10 billion a year.
	Dyslexia Action has so far relied on imaginative and far-sighted private donors to set up the project. However, in December, the Minister announced funding for the partnership for literacy of £250,000 over three years—

Sharon Hodgson: As I mentioned in Committee, the needs of deaf children deserve strong consideration as we try to improve provision for children with SEN. I am pleased that the Royal National Institute for Deaf People has given the Bill its support.
	There is evidence that deaf children are more likely to experience mental health problems. The RNID believes that collecting data on the five Every Child Matters outcomes, including information on admissions, attendance, behaviour, bullying and exclusion, will play a crucial role in helping us to monitor and ultimately improve the well-being of deaf and hard of hearing children.
	I realise that other Members want to speak, so I shall make only one or two more points to underline why the Bill is of such importance. At national, local and school level, better information has an important part to play in improving outcomes for children with SEN. The information that will be collected if the Bill becomes law has the potential to improve our understanding of what works for children with SEN. It will help to raise expectations and provide a better basis for evaluating particular projects and programmes, enabling us to share good practice and improve our understanding of training and professional development.
	Overall, the Bill will help to generate a more secure basis for the development of national policy. At every level of our education system there is significant potential for developing better understanding of the impact of policy on outcomes for children with SEN. As I said on Second Reading—I have reinforced the point today—there is tremendous support across the spectrum for more progress on SEN. Getting the best possible support for children is often a hugely frustrating experience for parents as they battle their way through the myriad forms and evaluations presented to them by the system.
	In my conversations with the parents of children with SEN, the same phrase comes up time and again—I have even used it myself. Parents say, "If I had known then what I know now, then I would have done things differently." In time, the Bill will ensure that parents know more about SEN support in schools. It will give campaigners the tools they need to keep pressing local and national Government to follow the evidence. Most important, it will help us all to identify what needs doing to improve things for children. Over time it will make a difference in classrooms across the country.
	Every child deserves the best possible chance to make the most of their talents. For 1.6 million children with SEN we can only make that happen if we know how to make it happen. I hope that in a few years' time more parents will say, "I'm glad I knew that, imagine how difficult it would have been if I hadn't." I commend the Bill to the House.

Maria Miller: I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate again the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) on securing the Bill and on trafficking it well through the House and, we hope, through to further discussion in the other place. I should also like to put on record my thanks to her and her staff for the discussions that we have had on the Bill, to produce a constructive set of debates. She has prompted a very important debate. In her opening remarks on Second Reading, she said that
	"private Members' Bills come in all shapes and sizes"
	and that
	"special educational needs come in all shapes and sizes."—[ Official Report, 1 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 558.]
	and she is absolutely right in saying that. The Bill will help parents, schools and teachers to come to terms with how diverse special educational needs are, and I hope that, through the data that are collected, it will help to ensure that the strategies that are needed to address such issues carefully are in place.
	The hon. Lady spoke movingly about her experiences with her son Joseph and his needs. That was echoed by a number of hon. Members in their contributions on their personal experiences with SEN. Many people are affected by the issue; almost 20 per cent. of children are now on SEN registers. As a consequence, this can no longer be seen as a sideline issue; it is very much a mainstream issue for education to deal with. Given that children with SEN are eight times more likely than other children to be expelled from school and twice as likely to have no qualifications at the end of their school careers—again, as the hon. Lady suggested in her earlier contributions—we need to ensure that that tremendous waste is curtailed. Moreover, we need to ensure that we do not entrench disadvantage by incorrectly addressing the issues identified during the debate.
	Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made important contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Christopher Fraser) made an important contribution in Committee and on Second Reading. Indeed, he drew on his family's experience of SEN. We have also heard important contributions from the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). Today, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) drew many incredibly important undertakings from the Minister in discussing amendment No. 1.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who is the shadow Minister with responsibility for the disabled, said something that resonated with me: information is not the outcome that we seek with the Bill, but it is the route to better outcomes for children. That sentiment drove a number of the amendments that hon. Members tabled both in Committee and on Report. The type of data is key, not just the collection of data for its own sake, and the Minister has echoed that sentiment in his comments.
	Particularly today, I feel that the discussion of teacher training yielded a great deal of clarification on the Government's position, although we have discussed that throughout the debates on the Bill. I remember that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) made a contribution on training. She highlighted her inadequacy in SEN training when she was trained as a teacher and said that that issue still required a lot of attention.
	The thing that I found most helpful was the undertaking from the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West to press the issue of training further, and to meet the Minister—I should be delighted to attend that meeting—to ensure that it is not forgotten. Her tenacity makes me certain that it will not be forgotten at all. Her commitment to the issue is welcome, and I look forward to doing what I can to support her. I know that she will not allow the Minister to dismiss the issue without a fuller investigation because she, like me, knows that the quality of teaching directly affects the outcomes for children. Perhaps, at that meeting, we can join together to persuade the Minister to place a burden on himself to undertake to work in his Department to co-ordinate research on teacher training. It is important that the initiatives that the Government have introduced, and which we all welcome, have an effect on what happens in the classroom.
	Like the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, I thank all the organisations that have taken so much time and trouble to develop briefings for everyone involved in these debates. There are many such organisations, but I shall mention just a few, including TreeHouse, the national charity for autism education which, throughout my time as an MP, has always taken the time and trouble to keep me informed about many issues, and has shown great support for our debates on the Bill. Xtraordinary People, the RNID, the National Union of Teachers, the National Children's Bureau, and the special education consortium, which the hon. Lady highlighted, have all provided important insights on which we, as parliamentarians, have been able to draw to ensure that our debates are as well-informed as possible.
	There has been no lack of initiatives from the Government on SEN. As I said on Report, I would detain the House far too long if I detailed each and every initiative introduced by the six Secretaries of State who have been in post since the Government took office 10 years ago. Each of them has taken the time to introduce some initiative or make an announcement on SEN. Importantly, the Bill's provisions will help us to see how those many initiatives translate into action in classrooms throughout the country. By collecting information and providing it to parents, we will ensure not only that the money that the Government are using is deployed effectively but that the initiatives result in pull-through on the ground—something about which concerns have been voiced in our debates. It is important that we have the information for which the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West has called, so that we can drive up standards. I remain concerned that the ambition for children with SEN is not as high as it should be, and it is important that we do all we can to support those children throughout their educational lives.
	In conclusion, the hon. Lady called her Bill "a catalyst for change", and I hope that she is right. Baroness Morris of Bolton, who will work in the other place in support of the Bill, shares my enthusiasm for it. I am sure that the Bill will be safe in her hands, but she will pick up on the issues that I have raised, including teacher training, to make sure that we get the detailed information that will be useful to parents. There is a compelling case for the Bill, and I wish it well as, hopefully, it goes to the other place. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, who has shown the energy, drive and commitment to make sure that it makes a real difference to this country.

Annette Brooke: I, too, reiterate my congratulations to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). She has shown superb leadership and persistence throughout proceedings on the Bill. I am extremely pleased that she has indicated that she will persist in raising the issues on which detail is still needed, even when the Bill is passed. I also thank the Minister and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), because we have all had very constructive discussions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), who brought his personal experience to the debate.
	We all want a real difference to be made, and the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, reminded us that we are talking about a difference for individual pupils. We are looking to ensure improved information at individual parent and pupil level, school level, local authority level and national level, but at the end of the day we are talking about individual pupils. The Ofsted report of 2004 said that only a quarter of local education authorities have strong strategic management of SEN, and the majority had weak evaluation systems. It is a long time until 2009 and the next comprehensive Ofsted report on SEN, but I hope that our discussions during the passage of the Bill will have provided information for that report, and will have allowed the agenda to be moved along.
	We want the Bill to result in monitoring, evaluations, the planning of better provision by local authorities, and of course the sharing of good practice. I keep mentioning local authorities; I intend to be challenging rather than critical, but I want to highlight the fact that local authorities occupy a pivotal position, and I want the most made of that position. On Second Reading, much comment was made about the fact that when questions are asked, the answers are typically, "The information is not collected centrally" or "The answer can only be gained at disproportionate cost." I hope that that will no longer be the case.
	On Second Reading, in Committee and on Report we spent a great deal of time talking about teacher training, and I am glad that our discussions on the subject will continue. Clearly, we are looking for a balance. We do not want the Bill to create bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. We want evidence-based policy and practice. It is critical that we get that balance right. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West mentioned the very large number of children who are identified as having special educational needs; perhaps we should add to that number to take account of those whose special educational needs have not been identified. We want to unlock the potential of all our children. The key to unlocking that potential is more than just information, but better information systems will make it easier to turn the key. I look forward to the Special Educational Needs (Information) Act.

Kevin Brennan: It is my great pleasure to speak on the Third Reading of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). In light of the praise that has been lavished on her, she will have difficulty getting out of the door after today's debate, but all that praise is deserved. She is very persuasive in a way that is not always met with in politics; she bowls people over with charm, as well as with the logic of her argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton, West (Mr. McAvoy), who is on the Front Bench, uses similar tactics in the Government Whips Office.
	I was recently in the north-east. In many ways, people from the north-east and people from south Wales, where I come from, are very similar. I noticed that there is an advertising campaign for the north-east, and its slogan is "Passionate people, passionate places." My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West is a living embodiment of that. Perhaps she should appear on the posters promoting the north-east to the rest of the country and the world, because she certainly lives up to that slogan in the way in which she puts forward her arguments on behalf of her constituents, and families with children with special needs right across the country. They have great reason to be grateful to her for introducing the Bill and steering it through its stages in such an exemplary fashion, and with great charm.
	I want to thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople for the serious and thoughtful way in which they have engaged with the Bill. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and I are former Select Committee colleagues, and I know how assiduously she cares about the issues, which showed in her contributions to the debate and the way in which she probed to ensure that the Bill achieves what we all want to see it achieve.
	The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) has a good knowledge of the issues. We do not always agree across the Floor of the House, but we have debated the issues in a civilised manner. It is important that her party is, like the other parties in the House, committed to the cause of children with SEN. She has pressed me once or twice about whether the Government are doing enough in that area, and I have responded. It is only fair that I press her back occasionally, especially because she mentioned in her concluding remarks on Third Reading that children with SEN are eight times more likely to be expelled than the average. I remind her that that situation would not be helped if an important tier of protection on exclusions were removed by getting rid of independent tribunals. I urge Conservative Members to think about the impact of such a move on children with SEN, whose interests the hon. Lady has discussed during the course of the Bill.
	The Bill is short, and it is not mine—it belongs to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. I will not match my hon. Friend's level of detail on Third Reading, but I will make a few brief points. The hon. Member for Basingstoke has asked whether our ambitions are high enough for children with SEN. The Government have shown their high ambitions in the children's plan and by supporting this Bill. One of our ambitions is to make this country the best place in the world for children to grow up. That is our mission and our ambition, and we want those words to become reality.
	When we discuss the issues, it is important to will not only the ends but the means. That is why we have undertaken record levels of investment in education and SEN. In the course of the Bill, I announced a number of measures on the provision of information and the improvement of teacher training. Our ambitions are high, and the children's plan, which we published last December, makes it clear that those ambitions are high not only for some children, but for all children. In particular, our ambitions are high for children from the most deprived or vulnerable backgrounds and for children with SEN.
	We all believe that every young person should have a fair chance to reach their full potential, which is the driving force behind this Government's agenda on children. As a result, the Government are determined to help children overcome the barrier presented by SEN. As we have discussed, a great deal of work is under way to try to narrow the gap in achievement.
	Incidentally, another hon. Member who contributed to proceedings and who is worthy of attention, particularly in relation to her contribution on deaf children, is my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley), who made a good speech earlier in our proceedings.
	We are determined to do more in the future, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, which is why the Government have supported and will continue to support the Bill in its passage through Parliament. We will not get anywhere on improving outcomes without better data. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has said, we do not want bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, so it is important that we collect information and data for a purpose that will have an impact at the front line and, ultimately, on the outcomes for those vulnerable children. We need a clearer picture of the scale and impact of SEN around the country to drive up the transformation that we want to see in standards. We want to see better outcomes for all children with SEN as well as other children in our schools. That is why the Bill is so important, and that is why the Government have been able to give it our wholehearted support. We wish the Bill bon voyage on its way down the Corridor to the other place, where it will hopefully have a smooth journey into law.

Christopher Chope: In this short contribution, I want to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) for getting the Bill to the stage that it has reached today. Hers was the second in the ballot of private Members' Bills; last week, we got the first one through. I am not sure how many more Bills will get on the carousel before the end of this Session, but getting the first two on their way to the other place is a great achievement for the two Members who were lucky in the ballot.
	I should like to ask the Minister a rhetorical question. What will the Government do with all the information to be provided? During these debates, we have referred to the issue of deafness. I have here a letter from a constituent who says how horrific it is that only 32.9 per cent. of deaf children in England achieve five GCSEs at grades A* to C, against a national average of 57.1 per cent.; the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has also referred to that. Now that we have those figures, how will the Government ensure that something is done to remedy the situation? Information is power; that is why this Bill could be significant. However, it will not be any use unless the information gained gives power that is exercised to bring about some improvements.
	Earlier, I referred and paid tribute to the work of the Priory Church of England primary school in Christchurch and its work with the Dore programme. All that was drawn to my attention by Judy Jamieson, the hard-working and able deputy chairman of governors. She has almost single-handedly been trying to promote the idea in a wider area of Dorset. Although the Minister did not really address the issue on Report in his response to the amendments, I hope that proper information about the Dore programme will be made available. One of the problems seems to be that the programme relates to a different category in respect of some of the special educational needs that we have been discussing. As was said by one of the professors giving evidence to the Welsh Assembly in November last year, there can be two approaches:
	"You can try to tailor the teaching to the child, or you can try to change the child in some way so that they are more able to benefit by traditional teaching."
	The Dore programme uses that latter approach, and it is not clear to me whether the Government are wholeheartedly open-minded about or willing to endorse it. The professor went on to say:
	"It seems that this is what the complementary therapies of all types are perhaps trying to do; rather than directly teaching reading, they are trying to alter the child's ability to learn."
	There is tremendous potential there. If there are people following these debates who find it difficult to access information about various symptoms of dyslexia, dyspraxia and other conditions, I am sure that they will become better informed, as I have, by looking at the Dore website, which has an amazing amount of information.
	Most important of all is the issue of early screening, to which the hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West referred in her Third Reading speech. If there were proper screening of all pupils of between six and eight years old, I am sure that we would be able to take remedial action much more quickly and direct it to the relevant children's differing needs and circumstances. I hope that that will be one of the things to come out of the Bill.
	I congratulate the hon. Lady once again. If the Government are genuine about taking the matter forward—I hope that they are—the hon. Lady has done a good job in bringing the Bill before the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

David Howarth: The hon. Lady's remarks are on the record to haunt her in future decades. A point against the present system is that it favours richer parties, which can raise funds to fight general elections more than once every four or five years. There may be something in what the hon. Lady says, but only because of the unfortunate way in which we fund political parties in this country.
	The second reason the present system should be got rid of is that it interferes with good government. It is said that fixed-term systems produce a political cycle in which Governments cause pain—necessary pain, they would say—in the first part of their term, but move to pleasure in the second part. At least that cycle is obvious to the electorate. In a non-fixed term system, things are worse because in effect we have a convention of four-year Parliaments, with all the disadvantages of a fixed term, but with the possibility of periodic panics where the idea that an election might in the offing leads to immobility in government. It might not be a bad thing if the Government were to do less, so perhaps immobility might be a good thing in some circumstances, but it is not good if it prevents the Government from working on particular projects.
	I have one specific example with which I was involved last summer. The Climate Change Bill got through a Joint Committee in July and was supposed to appear well before the new Session of Parliament. It was supposed to be debated extensively in this House early in the new year. As far as I can tell, no work at all was done on the Bill during the summer; the whole process was massively delayed. It has gone through the other place, but has yet to appear in this place. Having a system of occasional, months-long speculation about whether there will be an election leads to stop-start, boom-and-bust politics. It would be much better to have a regular rhythm.
	The intervention from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) was interesting, because another disadvantage of the present system—I am being stared at by a number of Whips at this point—is that it adds to the Government's power over their Back Benchers. The threat to recalcitrant rebels that if they vote the wrong way, they might bring the Government down, leading to a general election, has been heard recently in our political lives. The general election gives the ruling party an interesting threat to make to its own Members—that they might find themselves not selected for the subsequent election.

John Randall: Am I right to think that the Government would have to move a Bill of the sort that the hon. Gentleman describes, so if the Government did not want to do so in a political emergency, the Opposition would not be able to do so—as is the case now as we cannot choose when we want an election?

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Lady is right. I could have been much crueller about the 1992 manifesto—and indeed about the 1983 manifesto—but I though that that would be unfair. The hon. Lady is right that there were many other reasons why the 1992 manifesto failed to bring about a Labour Government.

John Randall: The hon. Member for Cambridge said that Governments are given a great deal of incumbency power, but what happened last autumn showed the Prime Minister to the populace in a bad light. His power was turned against him and he is now the most unpopular Prime Minister since records began.

Bridget Prentice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) on his success in the private Members' ballot. It is always a great achievement and Back Benchers value it greatly. I am grateful to him for initiating this debate on fixed-term Parliaments. Parliamentarians love to discuss the topic; we always feel more expert than anyone else on anything to do with Parliament and the way it works—we always think we know better than most about that.
	May I apologise again to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for my absolute lapse of memory on suicide notes and Labour party manifestos, especially, after all, as I was elected on the 1992 manifesto? I should hardly want to admit that I was elected on a manifesto with which I did not have some association. Nevertheless, manifestos evolve and change, as does the parliamentary system.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge has put his argument with great cogency. Indeed, in some ways, it would appear a neat and persuasive one. In fact, the issues that relate to the dissolution of Parliament and the timing of elections strike at the very heart of our democracy and constitution. We need to treat them seriously, so we very much welcome openly discussing possible changes to enhance the democratic process. That has been reflected in today's debate and in some of the other things that we consider, not just the timing of general elections but the other aspects of our constitution, the way that campaigns develop and so on.
	I was concerned that the hon. Gentleman said that his Bill made provision, even though implicitly, for situations where the fixed term should not apply. It is a short, neat and very clear Bill, and I can see nothing in it that would allow Parliament, the Government or any other part of the Executive or the legislature to call an election outwith the fixed term.

Bridget Prentice: I have not read the details of those proceedings, but we are in the process of having that debate—the Joint Committee has been set up, and we are discussing the measure with people. The rhetoric begins the process, and the reality is what will come out of the findings of the Joint Committee and others about constitutional renewal. The package of reforms that we have put forward represents the recalibration of a number of significant parts of our constitution. It is another step in the long and detailed programme of constitutional change that the Government have undertaken since 1997.
	There have been some fundamental reforms, including devolution in Scotland, Wales and, more recently, Northern Ireland, and the transformation of the role of Lord Chancellor. A supreme court is about to be established. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Human Rights Act 1998 were introduced, although I know that members of the Conservative party are not necessarily persuaded that we need a Human Rights Act. A lot of work has gone towards ensuring a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber. The Government have been at the forefront of constitutional renewal for the past 10 or 11 years.
	The reforms in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill will have real consequences for the governance of the country. For example, they will ensure that a future Government could not make changes to the core values of the civil service without proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny. They will give Parliament a vote on the ratification of treaties. They will stop the involvement of the Lord Chancellor and Prime Minister in certain judicial appointments. Those are tangible reforms that will absolutely change the way in which our constitution and our Parliament work. I want to consider some of those reforms in detail in this debate.
	The process of constitutional renewal continues with the publication of the Constitutional Renewal Bill. It is in draft so that we can respond to the debate so far, and then move on to the next phase. We invite Parliament and others to consider and comment on it and on the White Paper; that will enhance the quality of our legislation and contribute to the next step in the improved constitutional settlement. Of course, the Bill and the White Paper do not set out the final blueprint of our constitutional settlement; they are the next step in the governance of Britain programme. We hope that people across the country, in every walk of life, will continue to participate in the debate. That is a vital step in strengthening our democracy.
	The governance programme is of particular relevance to today's debate. It sets out to remove the power of the Prime Minister of the day to call a general election at will—that is the essence of the Bill before us. One of the main areas of the governance of Britain work is our commitment to consult on whether to change the system for dissolving Parliament. There is a very useful House of Commons standard note on fixed-term Parliaments. Currently, the Prime Minister requests that the monarch exercise her prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. The note says:
	"it is the Queen who formally calls a general election since it is she...who is vested with the legal power to dissolve and summon Parliaments. The power dates back to at least the thirteenth century."
	Of course hon. Members will today have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton, West (Mr. McAvoy) say that the Queen has given her consent to our debating the Bill in Parliament.
	Constitutional monarchs may continue to play a role in the formation of Governments, even in European countries where proportional representation, written constitutions and fixed-term Parliaments are in place. In Denmark, for example, the Government are in existence in law by virtue of the Prime Minister being nominated by the sovereign. In some countries, such as Belgium and the Netherlands, the monarch traditionally plays an active personal role in forming a coalition.

Diane Abbott: It gives me great pleasure to speak on the vital issue of the London 2012 Olympics and their possibilities for regenerating the lives of people in the Olympic boroughs in the east end. I clearly remember where I was when it was announced that London had won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. In common with most Londoners, I was thrilled and excited—more than I had anticipated being. It is appropriate at this point to note the tremendous work and commitment of the then Prime Minister, the then Mayor of London and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics in helping us win the bid.
	I was thrilled and excited not only because it is a huge honour for London to play host to one of the greatest international events but because of the possibilities for the regeneration of the east end. It seemed to me that not only was the country poised to host this tremendous event, but the east end of London, which includes some of the poorest communities in the country, also stood to benefit.
	Three years later, I am still a strong supporter of the Olympics and hugely optimistic about what the Olympics can do for the east end of London and my constituency. As the plans have unfolded, we have all seen what an ambitious and creative project hosting the Olympics is. We now have a new Mayor in London, and whereas I knew the commitment of the old Mayor in terms of using the Olympics for regeneration, one has yet to hear in detail from the new Mayor. It therefore seemed to me appropriate to come to the House at this point to set out what the people who live in the Olympic boroughs in the east end of London were promised and what progress has been made on jobs, business and employment.
	For the Olympics to be a genuine success for this country, for London and for the five east end host boroughs, the people who live in Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and the other Olympic boroughs must believe that they really will benefit from hosting the event; otherwise, the people of the east end will be like children pressing their noses against a window when something exciting and glamorous is happening on the other side. Local residents must feel that the employment possibilities for them and their children are going to rise. They must feel that the wonderful Olympic park, media centre and other buildings really will be turned into spaces that the community can use after the big event. It is important to remember that not just the local authorities of the five boroughs, and not just the streets, buildings and open land, are hosting the Olympics, but the people who live there are hosting the Olympics. Those people deserve to be part of the Olympics and to benefit from them.
	However, it is not just a matter of principle. I remind the House that the five host boroughs—Greenwich, Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest and Hackney—are among some of the poorest areas in the country. In fact, they are all among the 15 per cent. most deprived areas in the country, and my constituency of Hackney is in the bottom 5 per cent. Even at a time when the Government have done so much to invest in training and to put people into employment, only 55 per cent. of people of working age in Hackney are in employment. That is not just an abstract figure. There is a direct relationship between the problems that we see in our inner cities of gangs, deprivation and social exclusion and the continuing very low employment rates in the east end. As the former Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, remarked, many parts of the east end of London have not seen major regeneration since the Victorian era. The importance of getting economic regeneration right is immense. The Olympics represent a significant opportunity to turn round the fortunes of these poor areas and change the lives of the people who live there. For those of us who live in the east end, that means better transport links, improved facilities, a cleaner local environment, better access to sport, particularly for young people, and jobs for local people and contracts for local businesses. I will concentrate on the last two issues—jobs for local people and contracts for local businesses—in my remarks.
	Let me remind the House of what was promised to the east end from the 2012 Olympics. In June 2006, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Olympics said:
	"We are determined to ensure that legacy is at the heart of everything we do, whether it is delivering world-class stadia or providing grassroots facilities designed to benefit the whole community."
	In October 2006, Lord Coe, chairman of the London 2012 organising committee, said:
	"London was chosen to host the 2012 Games because of its diversity, unique heritage and the enthusiasm of local people. We want to invite people from all of London's communities, particularly those who live around the Olympic park, to get involved and to reap the benefits the Games will bring."
	In its 2012 annual report, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport named one of the key objectives of the Olympics as:
	"To maximise the economic, social, health and environmental benefits of the Games for the UK, particularly east London."
	I stress "economic". The Olympic Delivery Authority says in its 2008 employment and skills strategy:
	"London 2012 is committed to creating a positive employment and economic legacy for London and the UK after the Games. This will be achieved through the creation of new jobs, an increase in sustainable skills among local people and improved links between employers and those looking for work, recognising the high proportion of Black, Asian and minority ethnic people in the community."
	Those are very hopeful words.
	When we add the sheer volume of investment and work that needs to be done on the Olympic site to the hopeful words that the people of the east end have heard, we can see the possibilities. Five permanent venues will be built, as well as three temporary venues, one media centre, earthworks, landscaping work, 11 highway bridges, 13 permanent footbridges, extensive land clearing, waterways and new roads. And that is just to build the park. Once the games are over, there will be a large amount of work to do to transform the park into legacy mode. Recent research by ConstructionSkills—the sector skills council for the construction industry—found that because of the Olympics construction work in Greater London, construction jobs will grow in number by 8.4 per cent. between 2008 and 2012. Its research predicts that 14,930 new recruits will be needed every year to meet that demand and 3,000 construction, professional and technical staff will be needed each year until the end of the games.
	A huge amount of money is going in. The Government are providing at least £5.9 billion; the Greater London authority and the London Development Agency are providing £1.17 billion; and the launch of the London 2012 business network includes details of £6 billion of contracts, and an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 associated supply chain opportunities. That represents huge potential for local people and local businesses. It is perfectly true that the ODA and the LDA have produced plenty of papers. They are planning training and skills programmes and there has been a lot of talk about employment possibilities and creating an Olympic work force that looks like multicultural London. Sadly, it seems to me that the reality does not match the talk. It does not match what people have been promised, the number of jobs that will be created or the billions of pounds of public money that have been invested in the Olympics. I know that people have been meeting; there have been committees, papers have been drawn up and people have highly paid jobs that ostensibly speak to that agenda, but it is important to highlight the problems and draw attention to what is happening now before it is too late for the employment benefits of the Olympics to make a difference to my constituents. I worry that by waiting to see whether local businesses are able to access tenders and whether local people get training, we may be waiting for one, two or three years in which local people have missed out.
	I am sorry to say that the current figures are dismal. Despite the billions of pounds being poured into the construction of the Olympic park, the numerous training programmes and the huge amount of labour that needs doing, the number of people from the east end who have received jobs there remains low. I understand that only 430 people from the five host boroughs are currently employed in Olympic jobs, out of a possible 2,488 jobs that have been given out so far. Employees from the host boroughs make up only 17 per cent. of the total Olympic work force, and out of those figures, sadly, Hackney has the lowest number of residents involved in Olympic jobs. Just 48 Hackney residents have Olympic jobs out of the 2,488 people employed.
	Unfortunately the situation does not look much better for training, about which there has been a lot of talk. The training programmes designed to get local people into Olympic jobs have not had much success. A programme called Personal Best was piloted in Hackney, and 50 local residents graduated from it. But out of those 50, only two have secured employment whilst eight have been taken up as volunteers. The Olympic Delivery Authority scheme aimed at getting local people involved with the Olympics has put only eight Hackney residents into employment. As for local businesses, business suppliers to the Olympics total 600 at the moment. Out of those 600 businesses, only 77 are based in the Olympic boroughs and only 13 in Hackney. That means that Hackney businesses have just 2 per cent. of the business tenders available so far. That is simply not good enough and it would not be surprising if local people began to think that all the talk about them benefiting from this huge billion-pound extravaganza was simply talk.
	The Olympic Delivery Authority's equality and diversity strategy sets out the ODA's aims—widening participation and opening up the construction industry to under-represented groups such as women and black people—and claims that they can be achieved by following a fair recruitment process and adhering to equal opportunities. That is admirable, but in reality a fair recruitment process and adhering to equal opportunities are the bare legal minimum, and what we should expect of any company or organisation. They are not proactive ways of increasing diversity; if anything, they are simply ways of maintaining the status quo.
	The Department's annual report does not focus much on local employment. Instead, it talks of the aim of local participation in cultural and community activities and volunteering. I have been there before. When billions of pounds were being spent on the Dome, I went to talk to those who were running the project about jobs for local people in Greenwich. All I heard about was volunteering. In the end, local people and companies did not benefit from the Dome as they should have, although there is now a fabulous building there, in south-east London.
	I do not dismiss the benefits of voluntary work, but I do not want efforts to secure volunteers to detract from the crucial need for local people to be given paid employment. It strikes me as somewhat patronising to suggest that the residents of the Olympic host boroughs will remain compliant as long as they are thrown some cultural activities or volunteering work. If the Olympics are to have an impact on levels of unemployment, deprivation and social exclusion in the east end, they must focus on the employment issues.
	I do not think that those who talk of employment for local people have got to grips with a proactive strategy. The ODA tells me that it aims to employ 10 to 15 per cent. of people in the Olympic park construction work force from the five host boroughs. It says that that is the average number of people currently employed on a typical work site in London, but I say that it is a pitifully unambitious target. The public have not spent billions of pounds on the Olympics only to achieve that level of employment. The Olympic project should be raising the stakes. It will have no sustainability if local people see 85 to 90 per cent. of jobs going to outsiders.
	I am concerned about the low targets, and about the lack of a proactive strategy not just to make the Olympic park reflect employment realities now, but to make the Olympic park, Olympic construction and Olympic development show the way towards what can be done to employ and give opportunities to local people. I am sure that the Department is not merely cashing in on the image of London as a multicultural city, or on the idea that the Olympics will take a deprived region out of poverty—whereas, in reality, few local people have Olympic jobs or contracts—but that is how things look at present.
	It seems to me that if the Government, the Mayor and the ODA are to make good the promises made to the east end three years ago, we need a much more proactive and urgent strategy both to put local people into jobs and training and to give local business, particularly small business, access to the tendering process. The current targets appear to admit defeat before even trying to increase local employment. There is a danger that some of the big employers will get away with making token gestures rather than doing the sort of work that was done at the time of the Atlanta Olympics, which represented a huge stepping-stone for black business and jobs for local young people because the necessary political leadership was there.
	I remain as thrilled and idealistic about the Olympics as I was when I first heard that our bid had been successful. I bow to no one in my respect for the people, including my right hon. Friend the Minister, who were the architects of that successful bid. However, if we are not to see deepening disillusionment in the east over this major project, we must deliver both the practical and the political meaning of the promises that were made about regeneration.
	I would not like the change of Mayor to lead to a slackening of the emphasis on economic regeneration and jobs for local people. It is not enough to have meetings and working parties. It is not enough to draw out strategies on paper. It is not enough to recruit highly paid persons with supposed responsibility for these issues. The stakeholders involved in 2012 must raise their game and achieve concrete targets for local employment and local regeneration.